Template talk:Belief systems

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Religion (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Name[edit]

  • Since when is it NPOV to characterize agnosticism and atheism as belief systems?
  • A more appropriate title might be: Positions on Existence of Deities OR Theological Positions
  • not sure monism should be here either--JimWae 00:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • left as belief systems it should include MATERIALISM, SPIRITUALISM, COMMUNISM, CAPITALISM,... --JimWae 01:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    • For Positions on Existence of Deities there are really only three positions, 'yes,' 'no,' and 'don't know'.... Theological Positions is better, but I worry that it will lose the distinction that some of these are truly Deological or Antitheological.... Theories on the Existence of Deities? Also, not Communism or Capitalism, this is intended for religion/spiritual beliefs!! //// Pacific PanDeist * 23:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
      • would "Spiritual Belief Systems" or something along the lines of "Metaphysical Positions" work maybe? Coda littleking 22:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • These are (or should be?) all about deities - their existence & their "nature". Theology (literally study of God) works for me, though some generalize theology beyond that. One thing for sure "belief systems" does not work - because some of the positions (such as atheism) are not necessarily a system of belief, and many belief systems (eg communism) are excluded from the template. --JimWae 23:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Ok, I made it "Beliefs about the nature of the divine" - obviously an improvement, but nothing's perfect, right? //// Pacific PanDeist * 04:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Why would you put atheism under this? It has nothing to do with beliefs about the nature of the divine. This needs a new heading.

Atheism & agnossticism are neither beliefs nor systems - the Template name needs revision. I suggest Template:Theological positions. Theology does cover more than deities, it covers ideas about justice in the afterlife, so some things like mysticism & spiritualism could be included. Perhaps some items do not make sense in that category & will need to be dropped. We need to either drop atheism & agnosticism, or come up with a name that is descriptive & not misleading. Several items seem to be more about spiritualism than deities - Perhaps 2 templates are needed instead of one --JimWae 09:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Atheism is clearly a belief system about God, albeit a null God. Agnosticism is similarly a null belief system. Both belong in any list of belief systems, else this is equivalent to saying zero is not a number. — Randall Bart (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Zer0 is a number & atheism is a theological position, but it need not be a belief. It can simply be a rejection of belief - and, since no other position need be implied by it, it is not a system. This template is too volatile to be put on so many pages. Changes are needed to template - probably to its title, as I have long suggested. An appropriate title is needed to reduce volatility --JimWae 04:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC) - by title, I mean the one that appears in the template - Religious belief systems --JimWae 05:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I propose again that the title that appears in the template be changed to 'Theological positions and that it link to theology rather than to religion. Our wikipedia article says Theology finds its scholars pursuing the understanding of and providing reasoned discourse of religion, spirituality and God or the gods. --JimWae 05:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Tomato or tomato; It is just semantics. The name of the title is fine, but religious belief systems should probably be changed though. It seems that atheists trys to be elusive, so that no one will actually understand what atheists believe and thus be able to criticize it; like atheism has some magical ability to not be characterized with other belief systems. It is ridiculous that atheism actually considers itself a non-belief. Even weak atheism requires a belief in what is the "natural" position or what I would consider it the "default" position to take in such matter. Templates are not places to argue the finer points of philosophy; most people recognize atheism as a belief system and it thus belongs on a template with the rest.--Jorfer 17:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

An encyclopedia must concern itself with semantics - even ones that do not claim to be NPOV. Atheism is NOT a system, nor need it be a belief. Deists consider themselves religious, but they "believe" they know there is a deity. "Theological positions" avoids all these issues - and focuses the list so that not every -ISM is a candidate for inclusion (o/w there's no apparent reason not to include communism & socialism & capitalism - belief systems far more widespread than many of those included in the template)--JimWae 18:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Monism is not always relating to a theological position just like you say atheism is not necessarily a belief system, but I would say it merits this template so the argument could go both ways. Your seem to think that it is axiomatic that Atheism is not a belief system. The evidence is not sufficient to support belief in a higher power, that the negative is true until the positive is proved, there is no ultimate authority in the universe, truth can only be subjective, no one can save us, we must save ourselves, etc. It sounds like a system of beliefs to me.--Jorfer 19:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

What is the purpose of the template? - how is it any more focussed than List of belief systems? On what basis is selection from that list made? Is it on the basis of religion? If so, why include any non-religious ones? --JimWae 19:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The non-religious ones were included before I ever touched the template. From looking at it, it appears this template is supposed to be the most notable belief systems from that list.--Jorfer 19:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Well there are at least 100 from that list more "notable" than just about all the ones included. Until there is a rationale for inclusion, there will just be a succession of editors structuring this template to fit their POV. A template called theological positions would at least have some focus - and include MOST of what is presently included --JimWae 20:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

That is actually a good idea then. We will still have a problems with people including Pastafarianism or Conservative Judaism for example, but it won't be as broad. Monism and dualism do not necesarilly relate to theology, but it is fair then to include it here as the theological side as it is already included in the philosophy template. I support the name change then, but you should wait for one more supporter to establish a consensus.--Jorfer 20:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

FSM?[edit]

Should the Flying Spaghetti Monster really be here? As I understand it, it is a joke, not an actual belief, and further, is a single belief, rather than a belief system, as the template seems to intend. I'll remove it, if somebody disagrees you can put it back, and respond to the two points above. --71.192.116.43 22:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Deism isn't theism[edit]

Why is deism under theism? --212.247.27.81 19:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight given to agnostism/atheism links[edit]

Since this template isn't the atheism template, but the general belief systems template, it seems inconsistent and in my opinion POV to have tons of links to atheism articles such as demographics, list of, criticism, ect., and not have links to for instance demographics of theism, list of animists, criticism of pantheism ect. I however think it's a little much for all that in the template, so it should just have links to each basic article and then the reader can go from there. Otherwise to avoid inconsistency and POV the template will become too large and burdonsome. If the atheists are bummed that they are not getting their proper due, then just reestablish the general atheism template seperate from this one, or should we merge all religious templates into this one to have it be consistent and NPOV? As I have said, I don't think that's a good idea. Roy Brumback 05:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It's fine: there is no undue weight vio, it's a template, not an article. •Jim62sch• 21:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
So are you saying this template can be unbalanced toward one belief system because it's a template, and that thus a general belief system template can have a POV stacking it with tons of articles about atheism and only one link each to all other belief systems? Roy Brumback 22:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Heads up to the WP:3RR. Please stop reverting non blatant vandalism. Tiddly-Tom 22:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
It isn't vandalism at all to make good faith edits over content. Atheism and agnosticsm were not deleted, only scaled down to be consistent with the other links on the template. Roy Brumback 22:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Your "impression" that there is undue weight is incorrect. This is actually a fairly objective list, because it includes several from each. Stop deleting this stuff out. I have made a request for protection. Gregbard 00:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Is Atheist Alliance International a "belief system"? That one should be out.... and so should the List of agnostics and anything else that is not a belief system.... //// Pacific PanDeist * 15:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm stopping this lunacy before it gets out of hand -- "what's your belief system?" "oh, it's Discrimination against Atheists".... if you said that people would (rightly) think you a nunce.... I have restored Template:Atheism and Template:Agnosticism (which someone had made the equally lunatic mistake of calling overlapping), if you want a template on lists of agnostics and discrimination against atheists and state atheism, well there you are.... there's enough spamming of templates going on without "merging" all this stuff in, and WHERE IS THE DISCUSSION OF WHETHER THESE COLLECTIONS OF NON-BELIEF SYSTEMS SHOULD BE MERGED INTO THIS TEMPLATE? This "merger" and all of these additions were done out of process!! //// Pacific PanDeist * 17:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The whole template is screwed up now.... makes it look like Theism (being on top) is more important and probably therefore more valid than Atheism, which is more important that Agnosticism, which is more important that any of the "Other" systems (try telling a Gnostic that).... before it had no divisions and was alphabetized, so nothing got unequal weight.... and then, boom, it's just all rearranged and pulled out of that mode, like none of the thought that originally went into this template mattered.... well, I will tell you, it mattered.... //// Pacific PanDeist * 17:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay, some of the above was venting (and I'm not going to be a pussy and delete what I've said even though my tone was off base) but the points are valid.... nothing should be in here but that it's a "belief system", and ideally they should be listed in a way that gives no sense of greater importance to any of them.... //// Pacific PanDeist * 17:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a template and therefore the same rules do not apply as articles. The title is seen only by editors so it is not important that the content stick to the title; just that it is practical. The title of a template is just to give editors an idea of what it is. Template needs simple titles so template titles are topics as opposed to categories. Templates do not require the level of discussion that articles do but if you wanted a discussion you have the above. Much of the elements of these templates were overlapping before I dealth with them but now it is in a single organized template. Usability is the most important thing with templates as opposed to POV. The template is designed around the articles that currently exist as opposed to Demographics of theism, List of animists, Criticism of pantheism which currently do not. Finally, the list is arranged in a logical order and not one of importance or alphabetical order (You need the possibility of theism to neccesitate atheism, weak agnosticism is next to strong agnosticism, etc.). Saying this I am going to restore the template and merge as the discussion continues.--Jorfer 18:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not the title, it's the sprawling content.... why do Binitarianism and Gnosticism and Pandeism need a template with links to Demographics of atheism? If the content of the template is not made sane, then the alternative is that the template should be removed from articles where those links are not necessary.... //// Pacific PanDeist * 23:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I would not call that sprawling by any stretch of the imagination. It's not that they need the links, but that it would be helpful for anyone researching the subject of belief systems to be able to easily find what Wikipedia articles are available without having to jump to multiple closely related templates or searching through unorganized query results.--Jorfer 15:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Well it's definitely more logical now.... if you want all different concepts, then make different templates and put as many templates as you want on pages where they make sense.... Pacific PanDeist 17:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This version looks good to me.[edit]

I think we should have a little cooling off period. Roy has made a good compromise in my view. I was a little heavy handed in proposing protection so this is a conciliatory acknowledgment. It looks consistent as is. Gregbard 06:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with it as is after this reasonable trim.... //// Pacific PanDeist * 12:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This template isn't very good[edit]

No mention of theism or atheism, and despite the fact that determinism is mentioned (I've never heard of it described as religious) it's opposite (libertarianism, not the political thing, but the philosopical belief) isn't mentioned.

--RucasHost 02:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with readding atheism back in - as people say above, it's not a belief system (either that, or we rename to something like "theological positions" as suggested above). Given that Template:Irreligion has now been created (presumably to solve this dispute), I don't see why we need to start adding the entries back in here as well. I presume the intent of the earlier edit removing atheism [1] was to get rid of all the entries that are now covered in the new templates. Mdwh 13:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually atheism & agnosticism were readded on Sep 16 and ARE still in the template. This template, as currently named, has no focus. Belief systems is too broad, as that would include communism & monarchism & ..... (100s more). It seems the intent is that it be about religious viewpoints. As I have said, at least 3 times now, the name Theological posistions would at least give it some focus - even if a few of the topics would not be included. --JimWae 19:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd say this edit has ignored this talk page[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Belief_systems&diff=prev&oldid=176921648

There is strong disagreement that all those entered into Religious beliefs group truly belong there, tho' I agree with moving Deism. I have removed the group label - because there's no point in having a single group AND because many are NOT "religious beliefs". I do think it serves a function to have 2 groups & a revert of the above edit may be in order --JimWae (talk) 04:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Panentheism[edit]

Panentheism should be added to the following Template:Belief systems

list. 193.255.108.20 (talk) 20:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Haqq-Muhammad-Ali and Tawhid[edit]

Haqq-Muhammad-Ali and Tawhid should be added into your list.
68.100.175.30 (talk) 07:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC)